Agency and Freedom in Neo-Functionalist Action

ACTION THEORY 795

freedom in its analytical frame functionalist argument for f and passivity. If we accept framework, we are led to deny fact, however, is that humans are not as determined as the functionalist model actually implies. According to functionalist and neofunctionalist theories human actors are free because they have internalized the social and cultural norms and values of the society. In this perspective, humans play their roles on the basis of recognized mutual norms and follow the rules of society. These rules are structural forces which determine the actions of human individuals. We should remember that deviation from social rules and cultural norms are interprete by functionalists as indications of disorder and unfreedom. is clear that this deterministic tendency has been present diverse forms of functionalist theory. Needless to say, the mo common definition of functionalism identifies it with sociolo ical realism, according to which the individual is shaped a formed by an already existing social structure and tradition. this case the individual is merely an embodiment of socia relations and cultural norms. Individuals simply internalize th norms and follow them. It is one of the basic premises of this article that such a deterministic account of individual actions cannot be accepted. On the contrary, individuals are left with a wide range of options, ambiguities, and choices within the social and cultural framework. Instead of simply following the rules of social interaction, they play with the rules, use them against other rules, redefine the norms, and exploit the ambiguities of the rules in the context of conflict and dialogue with other members of the society. Tradition, rules, and norms, conse- quently, are not just constraints to obey but also resources to utilize. Such an approach rejects both individualist, nominalist, and liberalist reduction of society to individuals, and the structuralist, realist, reificatory, and functionalist reduction of individual to society. Conflict and power struggle over both

This content downloaded from 128.97.156.83 on Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:18:10 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms